This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-158
entitled 'L.A. Federal Courthouse Project: Current Proposal Addresses
Space Needs, but Some Security and Operational Concerns Would Remain'
which was released on December 20, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairmen, Committee on Environment and Public Works and
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. Senate:
December 2004:
L.A. FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT:
Current Proposal Addresses Space Needs, but Some Security and
Operational Concerns Would Remain:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-158]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-158, a report to the Chairmen, Committee on
Environment and Public Works and Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and
the federal judiciary have been carrying out a multibillion dollar
courthouse construction initiative to address the judiciary’s growing
space needs. To plan for and make funding decisions on projects,
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and GSA have relied on a
rolling 5-year plan prepared annually by the judiciary that prioritizes
new courthouse projects based on an urgency score. The urgency score is
based on the year a courthouse runs out of space, the number of judges
without courtrooms, security concerns, and operational inefficiencies.
In recent years, the L.A. courthouse had the highest urgency score in
the judiciary’s 5-year plan. At a cost of approximately $400 million,
the new courthouse is expected to be one of the most expensive projects
in the federal government’s courthouse construction program to date.
In light of the project’s significance, GAO was asked: (1) To what
extent does GSA’s current L.A. courthouse project proposal address the
underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles’s high urgency score and
(2) what construction and other costs, if any, may be required to meet
judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles? The Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts and GSA provided technical comments on this report.
What GAO Found:
GSA’s current proposal to construct a new courthouse in Los Angeles,
while expanding the judiciary’s use of the existing Roybal Federal
Building, would address some but not all of the underlying conditions
that led to Los Angeles’s high urgency score. For example, it would
address the judiciary’s need for additional space and alleviate some
security concerns. There would be space to accommodate the 47 current
district and magistrate judges and the 14 additional judges expected by
2011, with room to expand, if needed, for additional judges. The new
building would also improve security by providing additional holding
cells and separate prisoner walkways and elevators. However, the
operational and security concerns related to housing a trial court in
multiple buildings (split court) that was a significant factor in Los
Angeles’s high urgency score would remain. For example, U.S. Marshals
Service officials said that a split court would require them to
duplicate much of their security equipment and personnel necessary for
fulfilling its mission of protecting the courthouses.
The Current L.A. Courthouse Proposal Addresses Some Conditions
Underlying the Urgency Score:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To meet judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the federal
government will likely incur additional construction and operational
costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. Like
other courthouse projects in recent years, GSA officials acknowledge
that there is a potential for the L.A. Courthouse to incur future
escalation in construction costs due to changes during the design and
construction phases, such as increases in raw material and labor costs.
Furthermore, additional construction costs will also be incurred to
meet the judiciary’s space needs over the long term. Preliminary
estimates by GSA show that these costs may exceed $100 million. For
example, GSA will need to build four additional magistrate courtrooms
in the Roybal building and renovate the current courthouse to convert
courtrooms into office space for the U.S. Attorneys and other federal
agencies. GSA also plans a long-term expansion project to construct
seven more courtrooms to meet judiciary space needs by 2031. Judiciary
officials also acknowledge that a split court would result in
additional operational costs due to duplicate offices and staff in the
Roybal building and the new courthouse.
What GAO Recommends:
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-158.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at
(202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Current Proposal Addresses Some Conditions That Led to the High Urgency
Score, but Certain Operational and Security Concerns Would Remain:
Additional Construction and Operational Costs Beyond the Estimated $400
Million for the New Courthouse Are Likely:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Urgency Score Criteria:
Figures:
Figure 1: Conceptual Drawing of Proposed L.A. Courthouse:
Figure 2: Urgency Score for Spring Street Courthouse:
Figure 3: Colored, Numbered Lines on the Floor of a Secure Hallway
Leading from Prisoner Holding Cells to Corresponding Numbered
Courtrooms in Los Angeles's Spring Street Courthouse:
Abbreviations:
AOUSC: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts:
FBF: Federal Buildings Fund:
GSA: General Services Administration:
L.A.: Los Angeles:
Letter December 20, 2004:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Christopher S. Bond:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration
(GSA)[Footnote 1] and the federal judiciary have been carrying out a
multibillion dollar courthouse construction initiative to address the
judiciary's growing needs. In 1993, the judiciary identified 160 court
facilities that required either the construction of a new building or a
major annex to an existing building. To prioritize requests for these
new courthouse projects, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget,
and GSA rely on a rolling 5-year plan prepared annually by the
judiciary. The 5-year plan ranks projects using a methodology that
assigns an urgency score to each project based on four criteria--the
year a courthouse runs out of space, the number of judges without
courtrooms, security concerns, and operational
inefficiencies.[Footnote 2] In recent years, the Los Angeles (L.A.)
Courthouse has been ranked as the highest-priority project in the
judiciary's 5-year plan based on its high urgency score.
Currently, the L.A. Courthouse operations are split between two
buildings--the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal
Federal Building built in 1992. The current proposal is to expand the
judiciary's use of the Roybal building for the magistrate judges while
constructing a new courthouse to house the district judges. At a cost
of approximately $400 million, the new courthouse could be one of the
most expensive projects in the federal government's courthouse
construction program to date. Because of the project's significance,
GAO was asked:
1. To what extent does GSA's current L.A. Courthouse project proposal
address the underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles's high
urgency score?
2. What construction and other costs, if any, may be required to meet
judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles?
To determine whether the current project proposal would address the
courthouse space, security, and operational concerns in Los Angeles, we
inspected the current and planned sites for the U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles. We also interviewed judges and officials from the U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles, and officials from the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), GSA, and U.S. Marshals Service
(Marshals Service).[Footnote 3] We reviewed the urgency score criteria
developed by the judiciary and planning studies developed for GSA and
the judiciary for the L.A. Courthouse project. To obtain information on
courthouse construction and other costs, we reviewed relevant laws
related to the construction of courthouses, appropriations laws,
project prospectuses, and budgetary data. We also interviewed officials
from GSA and the judiciary. To ensure the reliability of information
presented in this report, we corroborated much of the documentation on
construction cost estimates, planning studies and prospectuses, and
urgency score criteria through testimonial interviews with GSA and
judiciary officials. A list of related GAO reports on courthouse
construction appears at the end of this report. We conducted our work
from June 2004 through September 2004 in Los Angeles, California, and
Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. This report summarizes the information we provided
to your staff during our September 23, 2004, briefing. The briefing
slides are included in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
GSA's current proposal to construct a new courthouse, while expanding
the judiciary's use of the existing Roybal building, would address some
but not all of the underlying conditions that led to its high urgency
score. On the positive side, it would address the judiciary's need for
space and alleviate some security concerns, both of which contributed
to the L.A. Courthouse's high urgency score. There would be space to
accommodate current judges and room to expand to accommodate most of
the judges projected in the court's long-range plan. The new building
would also improve security by providing additional holding cells and
separate prisoner walkways and elevators. However, the operational and
security concerns related to a split court, where court functions are
housed in multiple buildings in a city, would remain. The current split
court was a significant factor in the L.A. Courthouse's high urgency
score. For example, judiciary and Marshals Service officials said that
prisoners and evidence would need to be transported between the Roybal
building and the new building and several court functions would require
duplicate staff and offices.
To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
government will likely incur additional construction and operational
costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. As GSA
has experienced cost growth during the design and construction phases
of courthouse projects in the past (such as increases in raw material
and labor costs), GSA acknowledges that there is a potential for the
L.A. Courthouse to incur future escalation in construction costs due to
changes during these phases. GSA has also indicated that additional
construction funds will be needed to meet the long-term space needs of
the judiciary and other related agencies in Los Angeles. Preliminary
estimates by GSA show that these costs may exceed $100 million. For
example, AOUSC and GSA officials said that four additional magistrate
courtrooms will need to be built in the Roybal building and the Spring
Street Courthouse will need to be renovated to convert courtrooms into
office space for the U.S. Attorneys and other federal agencies. To meet
projected judiciary long-term space needs, GSA said that it could
construct one district courtroom in the new courthouse and six
magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal Building by 2031. Furthermore, GSA
and judiciary officials have told us that there will be additional
operational costs associated with constructing a new courthouse,
although the extent of these costs are unknown at this time. These
operational costs could include various moving expenses, leased parking
spaces, and relocation of existing federal tenants in the Roybal
building. Judiciary officials also acknowledge that a split court would
continue to result in additional security and operational costs due to
duplicate offices and staff in the Roybal building and the new
courthouse. AOUSC, GSA, and the Marshals Service, which is part of the
Department of Justice, reviewed a draft of this report. AOUSC and GSA
provided technical comments and the Marshals Service did not have any
comments.
Background:
Los Angeles has one of the largest federal court operations in the
nation, processing more than 16,000 cases per year and serving an area
with more than 11 million people. In downtown Los Angeles, the District
Court operations are split between two buildings--the Spring Street
Courthouse and the Roybal Federal Building--that are approximately one-
quarter mile apart. The Spring Street building, considered by the court
to be the main courthouse in Los Angeles, is more than 65 years old
and, according to judiciary and GSA officials, requires major
renovations and does not currently meet the security or space needs of
the judiciary. By contrast, the Roybal building was constructed in the
early 1990s and, according to GSA officials, complied with design and
security specifications that were in place at the time it was
built.[Footnote 4] However, inefficiencies occur because the court's
operations are split between these two buildings.
Federal courthouse construction projects are prioritized based on
urgency scores assigned by the judiciary--the higher the score, the
more urgent the project is considered (see table 1).
Table 1: Urgency Score Criteria:
Criterion: Year courthouse runs out of space;
Value: 30 points;
Description: The year in which the building was or is projected to be
completely occupied by the district court and related components (such
as the Marshals Service), as documented in the judiciary's long-range
facilities plan or as determined by the Circuit Judicial Council.
Criterion: Number of judges without courtrooms;
Value: 15 points;
Description: Measures the number of judicial officers who currently do
not have courtrooms or who are projected not to have them over the next
10 years.
Criterion: Security concerns;
Value: 30 points;
Description: Includes whether the trial court is split into separate
facilities, whether there is a secure prisoner drop-off, and whether
there are separate walkways and elevators for prisoners, judges, and
the public.
Criterion: Operational inefficiences;
Value: 25 points;
Description: Includes physical building conditions--such as
inefficiently designed courtrooms with visual obstructions or
operations that are split among locations--that cause significant
disruptions to court operations.
Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.
[End of table]
The Los Angeles court has the highest urgency score of any project in
the 5-year plan due to the space, security, and operational
inefficiencies presented by the Spring Street Courthouse. To address
these concerns, GSA and the judiciary prepared a series of feasibility
studies looking at different options for accommodating the court's
long-term needs. One option involved constructing a stand-alone
building that would consolidate all of the court operations into a
single building. GSA and the judiciary also considered constructing a
companion building physically connected to the Roybal building. A third
alternative that was studied involved the partial or complete
demolition of an existing federal building to provide a site for a new
courthouse.
According to judiciary and GSA officials, after years of study and
debate, these options were not selected because of cost or space
limitations. For example, AOUSC noted that a consolidated courthouse
would cost approximately $480 million. Currently, GSA is proposing the
construction of a new 41-courtroom building, as shown in figure 1, to
house district court judges and related operations at a location
approximately 6/10 of a mile from the Roybal building. Under this
proposal, the judiciary would expand its use of the Roybal building for
magistrate and bankruptcy judges and related operations. GSA's plan
also involves consolidating the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Spring
Street building, along with other federal agencies and grand jury
suites. The briefing slides in appendix I also contain a map showing
the locations of these sites.
Figure 1: Conceptual Drawing of Proposed L.A. Courthouse:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
GSA estimates that constructing the new courthouse will cost
approximately $400 million. Funding for this project is contingent on
multiple appropriations.[Footnote 5] In fiscal year 2000, the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure authorized site acquisition and
design of the proposed courthouse, and in the following fiscal year
Congress appropriated $35 million for this purpose. In fiscal year
2004, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
authorized additional design and construction of the proposed
courthouse in Los Angeles. In that same fiscal year, Congress
appropriated $50 million for the project[Footnote 6] and appropriated
$314 million in fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 7] On November 17, 2004, the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also authorized the
construction of the new courthouse in Los Angeles.
Current Proposal Addresses Some Conditions That Led to the High Urgency
Score, but Certain Operational and Security Concerns Would Remain:
The current project proposal would address the judiciary's need for
more space and alleviate some security concerns, but the operational
and security concerns related to a split court that contributed to the
L.A. Courthouse's high urgency score would remain. More specifically,
while Los Angeles's Spring Street Courthouse received a total score of
85 out of a possible 100 points, making it the most urgent project in
the judiciary's 5-year plan, 50 of these points were related to the
trial court being split into two buildings, a situation that the new
project would not resolve.
The L.A. Courthouse on Spring Street received high scores in all four
criteria that the judiciary considers in assigning an urgency score
(see fig. 2). Because the L.A. Courthouse ran out of space in 1995, the
judiciary assigned the courthouse a score of 19.5 points using its
urgency scoring methodology. In addition, court officials projected
that seven judges would not have their own courtrooms within 10 years,
resulting in 10.5 points for number of judges without courtrooms.
Figure 2: Urgency Score for Spring Street Courthouse:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Spring Street building also received the maximum possible scores
for security concerns and operational inefficiencies (30 and 25 points,
respectively) because the trial court is split between two separate
buildings and, according to the judiciary, the Spring Street building
lacks a sufficient number of holding cells for prisoners. According to
judiciary officials, it is also difficult to keep prisoners separate
from judges and the public in the hallways. To address this last
problem, the courthouse has colored, numbered lines designed to guide
the U.S. Marshals as they lead prisoners from the detention cells to
the courtrooms (see fig. 3). However, court officials said that this
system is too confusing and difficult to follow through the narrow
halls. Furthermore, many of the building's courtrooms are less than
half the size required under the U.S. Courts Design Guide[Footnote 8]
or have major visual obstructions.
Figure 3: Colored, Numbered Lines on the Floor of a Secure Hallway
Leading from Prisoner Holding Cells to Corresponding Numbered
Courtrooms in Los Angeles's Spring Street Courthouse:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The current proposal--constructing a new courthouse and expanding the
judiciary's use of the Roybal building--addresses some of the
conditions that led to the high urgency score. For example, it
addresses the judiciary's space constraints by providing additional
courtrooms--sized to meet the Design Guide standards--to accommodate
the 47 current district and magistrate judges and the 14 additional
judges expected by 2011. According to GSA officials, there is also room
to build an additional district judge courtroom in the new building and
additional magistrate judge courtrooms in the Roybal building to
address the judiciary's projected 30-year needs. In addition, the
proposal addresses some of the more serious security and operational
inefficiencies associated with the Spring Street building, such as
providing additional prisoner holding cells, secure prisoner elevators,
and separate, secured hallways for prisoners, judges, and the public.
Marshals Service officials also told us that a split court would be
acceptable from a security standpoint, provided the Marshals Service
security standards are followed.[Footnote 9] In addition, the court
would receive the operational benefits of a new building, and under the
current proposal, avoid the major structural deficiencies of using the
66-year-old Spring Street building as a courthouse. For example,
according to the judiciary and GSA, the Spring Street building has
outdated electrical and plumbing systems and requires a seismic
retrofit to meet GSA's standards. In contrast, the Roybal Federal
Building, which was constructed in the early 1990s, was designed to
meet modern operational and security requirements. For example, it is
connected to the Metropolitan Detention Center, which houses federal
prisoners prior to arraignment and trial, via a secure underground
passageway, so that prisoners do not have to be led through public
areas on their way to and from the Roybal building cell block.
The current proposal's major limitation is that it would still result
in a split court, even though consolidating the district court into a
single building was one of the main priorities in the judiciary's most
recent long-range plan for Los Angeles, published in 1996. Operational
and security concerns stemming from a split court led to 50 of the 85
points in the Spring Street Courthouse's urgency score. For example,
the building received the maximum possible security score (30 points)
because the trial court was split between two buildings--the Roybal
building and Spring Street Courthouse. With the court still split
between buildings under the current proposal, related operational
inefficiencies and security concerns would remain. According to AOUSC
and Marshals Service officials, operational inefficiencies would
include the need to continue to transport judges, prisoners, and
evidence between buildings; confusion among jurors and attorneys over
which facility they should report to; and possible delays, misrouting,
and loss of time-sensitive documents (such as restraining orders) as
they flow between buildings. A split court would also require
duplication of several offices and activities. For example, Marshals
Service officials said that a split court would require them to
replicate much of their security equipment and contract guards to
operate the equipment and protect each building.
We noted during our review that the judiciary refined its urgency
scoring methodology in March 2002 and gave less weight to split court
factors. In the judiciary's current 5-year plan, 26 projects are scored
under the original methodology and 31 are scored under the refined
methodology. The L.A. Courthouse was scored under the original
methodology and has not officially been rescored. As a result, we use
the original methodology to discuss the L.A. Courthouse's urgency score
in this report. In September 2004, the Judicial Conference adopted a 2-
year moratorium on 42 courthouse construction projects currently listed
on the judiciary's 5-year plan. During this moratorium period, AOUSC
officials said that they plan to re-evaluate the urgency scoring
methodology as part of a larger review of the design guide standards
and the courthouse construction planning process.
Additional Construction and Operational Costs Beyond the Estimated $400
Million for the New Courthouse Are Likely:
To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
federal government will likely incur additional construction and
operational costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new
courthouse. These funds are designated for costs associated with the
proposed courthouse, including the site acquisition and the design and
construction costs. However, GSA recognizes that in recent years other
courthouse construction projects have had cost escalations. Cost
escalations may occur because of planning or design problems, such as
changes in the scope or specific design elements in a project, or they
may be the result of changes outside of the control of the planners,
such as increases in the cost of labor or particular construction
materials, such as steel. GSA has initiated actions intended to
mitigate this problem, including improving the design modeling process
and more closely reviewing project changes during construction.
Nevertheless, GSA acknowledges that a potential still exists for all
courthouse projects, including the L.A. Courthouse, to incur future
escalation in construction costs.
In addition to construction costs for the new courthouse, GSA has
indicated that additional funds will be needed for construction related
to the long-term space needs of the judiciary and other related
agencies in Los Angeles. Preliminary estimates from GSA show that these
additional costs may exceed $100 million. Specifically:
* To accommodate the anticipated need for additional magistrate judge
courtrooms, GSA told us that it will need to build four additional
magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal building to increase the total
number of magistrate courtrooms from 16 to 20. GSA has estimated the
cost of this renovation to be approximately $10 million.
* Once the District Court moves out of the Spring Street Courthouse and
into the new courthouse, GSA said that it will need to renovate the
Spring Street building to convert courtrooms into office space for U.S.
Attorneys and other federal agencies. The costs for this project are
not currently known, but a 1997 GSA study estimated the cost to be
approximately $77 million in 2003 dollars. However, according to GSA,
the Spring Street building will require major renovations, whether the
judiciary or other federal agencies use it.
* GSA estimates the costs associated with future expansion in the
Roybal building and the new courthouse needed to meet expected
judiciary space needs by 2031 to be $21 million. According to GSA, this
expansion, if necessary, would involve constructing six additional
magistrate courtrooms and judges' chambers in the Roybal building and
one district courtroom and judge's chambers in the proposed new
courthouse.
GSA and judiciary officials have also told us that there will likely be
additional operational costs associated with constructing a new
courthouse, although the extent of these costs is currently unknown.
These officials indicated that there will be moving expenses for the
judiciary to relocate to the new courthouse as well as to place all the
magistrate judges in the Roybal building. According to GSA officials,
the judiciary may also need to lease offsite parking spaces to
accommodate court needs, although the total number of parking spaces
needed, if any, is unknown at this time. In addition, in order to
accommodate additional magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal building,
GSA officials indicated that there may be a need to relocate some of
the existing federal tenants to leased space or to another federal
building in downtown Los Angeles.
Judiciary officials in Los Angeles also expressed concerns about
additional operational costs that would be incurred as the result of a
split court. According to the judiciary, some of the office space and/
or staff that would be duplicated in both the new courthouse and the
Roybal building include the clerk's office, pretrial services, jury
assembly, Marshals Service, and the U.S. Attorneys Office. The
additional costs associated with duplicating these offices are unknown
at this time because a larger staff and more equipment would be
necessary in a consolidated courthouse due to its larger size. However,
judiciary officials also acknowledge that a split court would result in
higher costs due to operational inefficiencies, including additional
travel time between buildings for movement of staff, evidence, and
prisoners.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided AOUSC, GSA, and the Department of Justice with draft copies
of this report for their review and comment. AOUSC and GSA provided
technical clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate. The
Marshals Service, which is part of the Department of Justice, said that
it did not have any comments on the draft.
We are providing copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, AOUSC, GSA, and the Marshals Service. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-2834, or at
[Hyperlink, goldsteinm@gao.gov], or David Sausville, Assistant
Director, on (202) 512-5403, or [Hyperlink, sausvilled@gao.gov].
Other contributors to this report were Keith Cunningham, Jessica Lucas-
Judy, Susan Michal-Smith, Alwynne Wilbur, and Dorothy Yee.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Appendixes:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Proposed Los Angeles Courthouse:
Project Briefing for the Committee on Environment and Public Works and
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
U.S. Senate:
September 23, 2004:
Introduction:
* Los Angeles has one of the largest federal court operations in the
nation, processing approximately 16,000 cases per year and serving an
area with more than 11 million people.
* The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles is ranked as the highest
priority project in the judiciary's 5-year construction plan[NOTE 1]
based on its high urgency score--a measure of a court's space,
security, judges impacted, and operational deficiencies.
* The Los Angeles courthouse project could be one of the most expensive
projects in the federal government's multi-billion dollar courthouse
construction program.
* Many of the Los Angeles court's deficiencies are based on the growth
of the court, the inefficiencies caused by operating a split court,
[NOTE 2] and the fact that the Spring Street building is 66 years old-
-it requires major renovations and does not meet today's security
needs.
* According to the judiciary's plan, one of the court's main priorities
in Los Angeles was to consolidate district court operations (i.e.,
district judges, magistrate judges, and the district court clerk's
office) into one building.
Objectives:
Because of the project's significance, GAO was asked:
1. To what extent does the current Los Angeles courthouse project
proposal address the underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles's
high urgency score?
2. What construction and other costs, if any, may be required to meet
judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles?
Scope and Methodology:
* Inspected the current and planned sites for the U.S. District Court-
-Central District of California, Los Angeles.
* Interviewed judges and officials from the U.S. District Court--
Central District of California, Los Angeles; and officials from the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), General Services
Administration (GSA), and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
* Reviewed key documents, including urgency score criteria, planning
studies, prospectuses and other budget data.
* Conducted our work in Los Angeles, CA; and Washington, D.C.; from
June through September, 2004, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
* GSA's current proposal to construct a new building, while continuing
to use the existing Roybal Building, would address the judiciary's need
for space and alleviate some security concerns. However, the
operational and security concerns related to a split court that
resulted in a high urgency score would remain.
* To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
government will likely incur significant construction and operational
costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse.
Preliminary estimates show that these additional costs may exceed $100
million.
Background: U.S. District Courthouses--Los Angeles:
Spring St. Courthouse:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Opened in 1938;
765,000 square feet;
Current major tenants:
U.S. District Court,
U.S. Attorneys,
USMS,
U.S. Circuit Court,
GSA.
Roybal Federal Building:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Opened in 1992;
1.2 million square feet;
Current major tenants:
U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
U.S. District Court,
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Satellite Library,
USMS,
Drug Enforcement Administration,
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Background: New Los Angeles Courthouse Proposal:
GSA is proposing:
* Constructing a new 41-courtroom building for district court judges
and related operations,
* Retaining the use of the Roybal Federal Building for magistrate and
bankruptcy judges and related operations, and:
* Consolidating the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Spring St.
building,[NOTE 3] along with other federal agencies and grand jury
suites.
Background: Current and Proposed Federal Court Buildings in Los
Angeles:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of GSA and Los Angeles Court maps.
[End of figure]
Background: New Los Angeles Courthouse Proposal:
GSA estimates the new building will cost about $400 million.[NOTE 4]
* $35 million was authorized in 2000 and then appropriated in fiscal
year 2001 for site acquisition and design.
* $50 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and authorized by
the House authorizing committee, but GSA said that it has not been
authorized by the Senate.
* $314 million was proposed in the President's budget, included in the
fiscal year 2005 House & Senate appropriations bills, [NOTE 5] and
authorized by the House authorizing committee.
Project Urgency: Findings:
* The current project proposal would address the judiciary's need for
space and alleviate some security concerns, but the operational and
security concerns related to a split court that contributed to the Los
Angeles Court's high urgency score, would remain.
Urgency Score Methodology:
Criterion: Year courthouse runs out of space;
Value: 30 points;
Description: The year in which the building was or is projected to be
completely occupied by the district court and related components, as
documented in the judiciary's long-range facilities plan or as
determined by the Circuit Judicial Council.
Criterion: Number of judges without courtrooms;
Value: 15 points;
Description: Measures the number of judicial officers who currently do
not have courtrooms or who are projected not to have them over the next
10 years.
Criterion: Security concerns;
Value: 30 points;
Description: Includes whether the trial court is split into separate
facilities, whether there is a secure prisoner drop-off, and whether
there are separate walkways and elevators for prisoners, judges, and
the public.
Criterion: Operational inefficiencies;
Value: 25 points;
Description: Includes physical building conditions--such as
inefficiently designed courtrooms with visual obstructions or
operations that are split among locations--that cause significant
disruptions to court operations.
[End of table]
Urgency Score for Los Angeles Court's Spring Street Building:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.
[End of figure]
The Spring St. Courthouse has a total score of 85 out of 100, which is
the highest score of any of the projects in the judiciary's 5-year
plan.
Project Urgency: Benefits of Current Proposal:
* The current proposal addresses the judiciary's space constraints by
providing enough courtrooms for current judges and those expected by
2011, with room to expand to accommodate six additional magistrate
judge courtrooms and one additional district judge courtroom.
* USMS[NOTE 6] officials said that a split court, although not ideal,
would be acceptable from a security standpoint if its design manuals
are followed. For example, the new building would provide more secure
judge and prisoner circulation patterns and increase the number of
holding cells.
* The court would also receive the operational benefits of a new
building, avoiding major structural deficiencies (e.g., seismic
vulnerability and old electrical systems).
Project Urgency: Limitations of Current Proposal:
* Under the current proposal, the court would remain split between two
buildings, even though consolidating the district court into one
building was one of the main priorities identified in the judiciary's
plan for Los Angeles.
* According to the judiciary and the USMS, a split court causes major
operational inefficiencies.
-Judges, prisoners, and evidence would need to be transported between
buildings, and:
-Many offices and activities would likely be duplicated.
Project Urgency: Impact of Split Court:
The split court factors accounted for 50 of the 85 points the Los
Angeles Court received under the judiciary's urgency scoring
methodology. (The split court accounted for all 30 points for security
concerns and 20 of the 25 for operational considerations.)
Note: During our review, officials from AOUSC informed us that the
judiciary refined its methodology for scoring urgency in March 2002.
Under the refined methodology, the impact of a split court on a
project's urgency score is noticeably reduced. The current 5-year plan
has 26 projects scored under the original methodology and 31 projects
scored using the refined one. The Los Angeles location was scored under
the original methodology. Further analysis by GAO would be needed to
assess the soundness of this approach and its impact on priorities in
the 5-year plan.
Other Costs: Findings:
To meet long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
government will likely incur additional construction and operational
costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. The
extent of these costs is unknown, but preliminary estimates show that
they may exceed $100 million.
Other Costs: Current Expenditures:
* On the basis of funding already appropriated or requested, $400
million is designated for the site acquisition, design, and
construction costs related to the proposed courthouse.
* On all courthouse construction projects, including Los Angeles, there
is a potential for future escalation in costs due to design and
planning changes during the construction process.
* According to GSA, cost escalations and scope changes for courthouse
projects have been a nationwide concern in recent years, although GSA
has initiated actions intended to address this problem.
Additional Construction Costs:
Description: Renovation of Roybal building to accommodate 4 additional
magistrate judge courtrooms.
Preliminary cost estimates: $10 million.
Description: Renovation of Spring St. Courthouse into office space for
U.S. Attorneys and others.
Preliminary cost estimates: Costs unknown at this time. (A 1997 GSA
study estimated costs of $77 million in 2003 dollars.)
Description: Future expansion in Roybal and new courthouse to meet
judiciary needs by 2031.
Preliminary cost estimates: $21 million.
Description: Moving expenses for the judiciary.
Estimated costs: 40 courtrooms at $10,000 per courtroom, and $3.00 -
$3.50 per square foot for office space.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
Additional Operational Costs:
Description: Leased parking to accommodate judiciary needs at new
building.
Estimated costs: $180 per space per month.
(Total number needed, if any, is unknown at this time.)
Description: Relocation of existing federal tenants in the Roybal
building.
Estimated costs: Costs unknown at this time.
Description: Redundant court offices and staff in the new courthouse
and the Roybal building.
Estimated costs: Costs unknown at this time.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
Split Court Would Result in Costs Due to Operational Inefficiencies:
* According to the judiciary, with the exception of the probation
office, five other court and related offices would require staff and/or
offices in both the new courthouse and Roybal.
* These five offices include:
1. Clerk's Office;
2. Pretrial Services;
3. USMS;
4. U.S. Attorneys Office;
5. Jury Assembly.
* The total costs associated with duplicating these offices are unknown
at this time.
Concluding Observations:
Although the current proposal addresses the judiciary's space needs,
the security and operational concerns that led to Los Angeles's high
urgency score will remain and GSA is likely to need significant
additional funding to fully address judiciary and related needs in Los
Angeles.
NOTES:
[1] The judiciary uses its 5-year plan to prioritize requests for new
courthouse projects to Congress and to GSA, the federal government's
central agency for real property operations.
[2] Split court refers to a court that has functions housed in multiple
buildings in a city.
[3] The U.S. Attorneys Office is related to the judiciary because it is
integral to the operations of the U.S. District Court, but is part of
the U.S. Department of Justice.
[4] This amount includes construction, site acquisition, design, and
management inspection.
[5] H.R. 5025 and S. 2806, 108th Congress.
[6] USMS provides security for the federal judiciary, including
courthouses, and prisoner transport.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
[End of section]
General Services Administration: Factors Affecting the Construction and
Operating Costs of Federal Buildings.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-609T]
Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2003.
High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-122]
Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003.
Courthouse Construction: Information on Courtroom Sharing.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-341]
Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.
Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis Would Help
Resolve the Courtroom-Sharing Issue.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-70]
Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2000.
Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance
Facility Planning and Decisionmaking.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-39]
Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1997.
Courthouse Construction: Information on the Use of District Courtrooms
at Selected Locations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-59R]
Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1997.
Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More
Informed Decisionmaking.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-27]
Washington, D.C.: December 31, 1996.
Federal Courthouse Construction: More Disciplined Approach Would Reduce
Costs and Provide for Better Decisionmaking.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-96-19]
Washington, D.C.: November 8, 1995.
General Services Administration: Better Data and Oversight Needed to
Improve Construction Management.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi- bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-94-145]
Washington, D.C.: June 27, 1994.
Federal Judiciary Space: Progress is Being Made to Improve the Long-
Range Planning Process.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-94-146]
Washington, D.C.: May 4, 1994.
Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-93-132]
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1993.
New L.A. Federal Courthouse: Evidence is Insufficient to Suggest that
Congress Reconsider Its Approval.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-88-43BR]
Washington, D.C.: March 23, 1988.
(543104):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GSA is the federal government's central agency for real property
operations, including federal courthouse construction.
[2] In September 2004, the Judicial Conference adopted a 2-year
moratorium on 42 courthouse construction projects currently listed on
the judiciary's 5-year plan.
[3] The Marshals Service provides security for the federal judiciary,
including physical protection of courthouses and prisoner transport.
[4] AOUSC officials said that, while the Roybal building meets security
standards, it does not comply with current U.S. Courts Design Guide and
accessibility standards.
[5] GSA requests funding for courthouse projects as part of the
President's annual budget request to Congress. These projects are
financed through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a revolving fund
used, among other things, for GSA's courthouse projects. Under the
Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, GSA is required to submit to
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works detailed project
descriptions, called prospectuses, for authorization by these
committees when the proposed construction, alteration, or acquisition
of a building to be used as a public building exceeds a specified
threshold. For example, in fiscal year 2005, GSA identified the
prospectus threshold as $2,360,000. The statute further provides that
these committees should review and approve individual projects before
Congress appropriates funds. In practice, however, some projects are
authorized after appropriations have been made.
[6] GSA's appropriation for fiscal year 2004 was contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, P.L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3
(2004). Section 168(b) of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2004 included a provision rescinding an amount equal to 0.59
percent of the budget authority for any discretionary account in the
act. According to a March 4, 2004, Office of Management and Budget
report specifying the amount and account of each rescission in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, there was a rescission of $3,403,000
of budget authority for the FBF from which an appropriation is made for
the construction of courthouses. The Office of Management and Budget
report did not specify the amount of the rescission for the L.A.
Courthouse.
[7] GSA's appropriation for fiscal year 2005 is contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809
(2005). P.L. 108-447 appropriates from the FBF $314,385,000 for new
construction for the Los Angeles Courthouse. There are two rescissions
that may affect the final amount that is funded for the courthouse. The
first is a rescission of $106,000,000 of the amounts made available
from the FBF for new construction and repairs and alterations. The
second rescission is an across-the-board rescission of budget authority
of 0.8 percent for most agencies, including GSA.
[8] The U.S. Courts Design Guide specifies the judiciary's criteria for
designing new court facilities. The guide was first developed in 1991
through a cooperative effort between the judiciary and experts in space
planning, security, acoustics, mechanical-electrical systems, and
automation, and is periodically reviewed and updated.
[9] Marshals Service security standards are detailed in its
Requirements and Specifications for Special Purpose and Support Space
Manual.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: